"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!?

"possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!?



That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!!

I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I
explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time
so you can refer to it when necessary.

Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his
boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where
they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to
rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about
these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time
to move the materials elsewhere.




Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this
newsgroup.

1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This
is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air
strikes could have dealt with at least some of the locations.


Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion.
If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should
provide you with the
necessary references to support your claim, right?

OK. I generalized. Try this: At the moment president Rove said he knew where
they were, he did not move. Doesn't matter when he said it, really.



Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have
used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian
populations.

2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country
didn't want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise
missiles have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did
not want to use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the
WMDs were.

Ipso facto, if Saddam had WMD, he was in violation of sanctions.
Why launch cruise missiles?
So you can emulate your predecessor and create a facade to make people
*think* that you're actually doing something?

Why launch? Because according to comments from Colin Powell, who ought to
know what he's talking about, ****SOME**** of the weapons could have been
safely destroyed via air strikes, while others were better dealt with more
carefully, "by hand", if you will. But, president Rove chose to do nothing.



3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could
appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well
before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in
October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent
them in.

Probably. But they had to at least create the appearance that they gave
the UN a chance to
establish its relevancy in the World. The UN blew that chance.

Why bother with appearances, when the entire plan was designed with
absolutely no consideration for our image in the world?



So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them
gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit
there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled
out: To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your
president can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much
whether soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons.

I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping Saddam
sneak the WMD from his country to Syria.

Oh boy. You think there were frightening numbers of Russian soldiers waiting
for us?